Strategies for engaging learners in a large-enrollment biology course: addressing diverse approaches to learning

1
Strategies for engaging learners in a
large-enrollment biology course addressing
diverse approaches to learning

• Kristen Short
• Assistant Professor of Biology
• Manchester University

2
Overview

1. Background information and rationale
2. Defining and measuring diversity
3. Results of data collected in my classroom
4. Implications for pedagogy
5. Conclusions

3
What is diversity?

• Age (traditional vs. non-traditional)
• Race/ethnicity
• Gender
• First generation college students
• Learning modalities
• Approach to learning, motivation

4
Motivations for learning(Martin Saljo 1976,
Ramsden 1988, Biggs 1987 1993, Entwistle 1981)

• Deep learners learn for the sake of learning
• Intrinsically motivated
• Tend to embrace and enjoy challenge
• Surface learners avoid failure
• Extrinsically motivated
• Avoid challenge at all cost
• Strategic learners earn good grades
• Extrinsically motivated
• Organized form of surface learning
• Tend to avoid challenge, especially if it is
  incompatible with good grades

5
A deep learner A surface learner

• Connects concepts within/between courses
• Relates learning to everyday experiences
• Finds meaning in learning

• Sees concepts as isolated pieces of information
• Does not relate learning to experience
• Memorizes meaningless information

6
Deep vs. surface learning

• Not really a learner attribute
• Approach to learning
• May be driven by
• Learner preferences
• Past learning experiences
• Classroom environment
• Pedagogy

7
Why I care

• AAAS in Vision and Change has called for more
  deep learning in science courses
• Deficiencies of surface approaches recognized in
  medical, pharmacy, law school
• PBL and case studies now promote deep learning in
  those contexts
• Does a students approach to learning affect how
  he/she responds to my teaching methods?

8
Main questions

• Is there a relationship between approach to
  learning and learning gains?
• Is there a relationship between approach to
  learning and response to teaching strategies?

9
My molecular biology class profile 52 students
All science majors
10
Assessing approach to learning

• Study process questionnaire sometimes used (Biggs
  1987, 2001)
• My assessment for this course 6 questions
• Students rated
• Learning in this course
• Response to challenge
• Questioning techniques
• Views of learning
• Students given score 8-24 points
• Lower third surface upper third deep

11
How would you describe your learning in this
course?

1. I have memorized information that never really
   made sense and was meaningless to me
2. I have memorized information that made sense at
   the time, but have quickly forgotten it
3. I have understood information, but could never
   apply it to new situations
4. I have understood and been able to apply my
   knowledge to new situations

12
In this course I

1. Asked lots of questions that helped me to see
   connections between real life and course content
2. Asked lots of questions to try to further
   understand course content
3. Asked lots of questions about what would be on
   the test
4. Did not ask questions

13
My view of learning is

1. I love learning just for the sake of learning
2. I learn enough to get the grade I want to earn
3. I learn the bare minimum to scrape by

14
When I encountered challenge in this course, I
typically

1. Felt invigorated this motivates me to learn
2. Felt excited but also nervous about how it would
   affect my grades
3. Felt annoyed I would rather not deal with it
4. Felt defeated challenge shakes my confidence and
   makes me less motivated to learn

15
Classifying learners

• Approach to learning
• Deep N 11
• Strategic N 32
• Surface N 4
• Effort
• 3 questions about hours spent preparing, effort
  during class, and studying for tests
• deeper learners are harder workers, with some
  exceptions (Spearman r 0.43, P 0.0012)
• Confidence
• 2 questions about confidence in biology, and
  confidence in this course

16
Assessing Learning Gains

• 38 content questions
• Multiple choice
• Answer choices equally represented
• Tested low to high levels of thinking
• Asked on first and last day of class
• No studying

17
Results learning gains

• On both pre- and post-tests, students knew
  significantly more than expected by random
  guessing (9.5)
• Pre-test mean 13.5 (t51 10.5 P lt 0.001)
• Post-test mean 22 (t48 13.9 P lt 0.001)
• Significant increase in content knowledge over
  time (t48 9.36 P lt0.001)

18
Were learning gains correlated with other factors?

• Learner approach score not correlated with
  learning gains (change pre-post), despite
  correlation with content knowledge at both time
  points individually
• (Pre Spearman r 0.29, P 0.04 Post
  Spearman r 0.33, P 0.02)

19
Were learning gains correlated with other factors?

• Effort? No (Spearman r -0.03)
• Confidence at the end of the course? Yes
  (Spearman r 0.38, P 0.007)
• Lower confidence, lower learning gains

20
Results confidence
Significant decrease over time (t51 -4.29
Plt0.0001) Significant correlation between
learner approach score and change in confidence
(Spearman r 0.43 P 0.0014) Significant
correlation between learner approach score and
confidence at end of course (Spearman r 0.47, P
0.0004)
21
Teaching strategies

• Does a students approach to learning affect how
  he/she responds to teaching methods?
• Do surface/strategic learners prefer passive
  learning?
• Are some methods better than others for engaging
  surface/strategic learners?

22
Active versus passive learning

• Active learning
• Student-centered
• Students are talking
• Students construct knowledge

• Passive learning
• Teacher-centered
• Teacher is talking
• Students receive knowledge

23
The learning activity that

• Deep learners had relatively even distribution
  for both
• Strategic learners showed large shift from
  lecture (45) to more even distribution, with
  case studies being slightly preferred (32)
• Surface learners showed no difference (preferred
  lecture for both)

24
When we did XXX in class, I

1. Really enjoyed this because it gave me the chance
   to engage in my own learning
2. Enjoyed this but would have been just as happy to
   have Dr. Short do it for us/hear a lecture
3. Did not see the relevance of this activity

25
Concept mapping

• Construct a concept map using the following
  terms
• Helicase
• Telomerase
• Primase
• Hydrogen bonds
• Phosphodiester bonds

26
Concept Mapping

• 50 of students enjoyed increased engagement
• Correlation with learner approach (Spearman r
  0.53, P 0.0002)

27
Case Studies

• A form of PBL
• Collection of cases http//sciencecases.lib.buffa
  lo.edu/cs/about/
• Used DNP case study to teach cellular respiration

28
Case Studies

• 51 of students enjoyed increased engagement
• No correlation with learner approach

29
Peer Discussion
30
Peer Discussion

• 69 of students enjoyed increased engagement
• No correlation with learner approach

31
Clickers

• Real-time assessment
• Low-stakes opportunity for engagement
• Practice questions

32
Clickers

• 89 of students enjoyed increased engagement
• Correlation with learner approach (Spearman r
  0.30, P 0.04)

33
Active/passive score correlated with learner
approach deep learners more receptive to active
learning (Spearman r 0.40, P 0.0058)
34
Conclusions student diversity

• Surface/strategic learners are losing confidence
• More confidence-building activities
• More formative assessment
• Deeper learners are more receptive to active
  learning, but most realize some benefit
• More case studies, PBL
• More explicit teaching philosophy
• Of methods I tested, clickers were highly
  successful with all groups

35
Remaining questions

• Learning retention differences?
• Approach to learning
• Teaching strategies
• Do approaches to learning change from first day
  to last day?
• Are changes in approach to learning influenced by
  grouping strategies?